Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Thomas v RSPCA [1998] UKEAT 731_97_1102 (11 February 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/731_97_1102.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 731_97_1102
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR A C BLYGHTON
MR R N STRAKER
MR N THOMAS APPELLANT
RSPCA RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, Mr Thomas, was employed by the RSPCA as a uniformed inspector, latterly in Cornwall. On 16 January 1996, after nearly 17 years service, he was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct.
He brought a complaint of unfair dismissal which was heard by an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Exeter over five days in November 1996 and March 1997. In a careful decision with extended reasons promulgated on 27 March 1997 that Tribunal dismissed his complaint. There is no appeal against that substantive decision.
By letter dated 8 April 1997 the Appellant applied for a review of that decision. For the reasons given in a further decision in writing dated 23 April 1997 the Chairman dismissed that application under Rule 11(5) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Against that review decision the Appellant appealed to this Appeal Tribunal by a letter dated 3 June 1997.
This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law to go to a full hearing.
The Appellant has explained in correspondence that he will not be attending at this hearing. He has asked us to deal with the case on the basis of his written submissions, contained in letters dated 3 and 9 February 1998, together with accompanying documents.
We have read those submissions together with the original Industrial Tribunal decisions and reasons; the application for review and the Industrial Tribunal review decision.
Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law. It is clear to us that the Industrial Tribunal Chairman was perfectly entitled to conclude that there were no grounds disclosed by the Appellant for holding a review of the original decision of the Industrial Tribunal. It follows that no error of law is made out in this appeal. Accordingly it must be dismissed.